Drug facilitated sexual assaults are a ubiquitous problem. Commonly known as “date rape”, the sexual assault generally occurs while the victim is incapacitated due to unknowingly imbibing chemical substances (i.e., drugs) surreptitiously placed in the victim's beverage by an assailant. Some common drugs associated with date rape are, e.g., Rohypnol, Ketamine, GHB (Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate), GBL (Gamma Butyrolactone), and 1,4-butanediol. Once ingested, the chemicals may act rapidly in the human body, often within 20 minutes, causing physical and psychological symptoms such as disinhibition, muscle relaxation, passivity, and loss of will to resist an assailant.
There are known techniques for detecting when a victim has ingested such drugs. For example, Woods et al., Journal of Chromatography, A 2004, 1056: 83-90, describes a system for simultaneous analysis of GHB and its precursors in urine using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Though this and similar techniques may be effective, a disadvantage is that they are not practical for non-professionals, and they require expensive equipment. Another disadvantage is the reactive nature of the test, meaning the system is testing the urine, thus the drugs have already been ingested and the victim may have already been assaulted before testing is even contemplated.
Other testing devices, such as those described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/583,512 filed on Dec. 16, 2004 by Grossman et al., titled APPARATUS FOR DETECTING DRUGS IN A BEVERAGE, and in U.S. Pat. No. 6,153,147 issued on Nov. 28, 2000 by Craig, titled BEVERAGE ANALYSIS SAMPLE, provide a more immediate and proactive approach through early detection. For example, Craig discloses a test apparatus utilized by the user at the site and time of beverage consumption. A portion of the beverage must first be captured by the user and drawn into an analysis chamber where the beverage is subjected to a chemical reagent composition, where the results of a color assay are viewable. That is, a color change may indicate a drug has been placed in the beverage.
Other testing devices may use the proactive techniques, but also provide discretion when testing a beverage for contamination. For example, the testing device described by Greenberg in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/899,646 filed on Sep. 7, 2007, titled STRAW HOLDER INTEGRATED WITH A BEVERAGE CONTAINER, shows a testing material that a user may utilize to test the beverage. Notably, the testing material is part of an entirely separate component which itself must then be connected to a beverage container.
A more discrete testing apparatus can be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/761,066 filed on Jan. 20, 2004 by Guerra et al., titled APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TESTING A BEVERAGE FOR A CLANDESTNE ILLICIT SUBSTANCE. Hiding the test strips allows the user to test the beverage without embarrassment by onlookers. For example, Guerra describes camouflaging and/or hiding individual drug testing strips in such things as a cocktail napkin, a beverage coaster, a placemat, a menu, a match book, a drink carrier (e.g., used to carry multiple drinks at once), a flyer, a coupon, and even a business card. As another example, the testing apparatus described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/266,690 filed on Nov. 3, 2005 by Cordani et al., titled LIQUID TEST PROBE, is camouflaged as a drinking straw. Notably, the disguised drinking straw only functions as a test device and not as an actual straw. Yet another example can be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/150,505 filed on Apr. 28, 2008 by Sliwa et al., titled BUOYANT-CAPABLE BEVERAGE AND FOOD CONTENT-SENSOR, describing a separate floating device in a beverage where the testing material is located. To test the beverage, the user must first remove a sample of the beverage and place it on the test portion of the device.
However, the prior art suffers from numerous disadvantages. For example, regardless of how quick a test result is determined, or how discreetly a testing apparatus may be hidden, the responsibility to carry the testing apparatus on oneself is burdensome and rests solely on the user. Moreover, even if a beverage has been tested at time T1, there is no assurance that the beverage subsequently has not been contaminated at time T2. Thus, there is an additional requirement for the user to continuously test and re-test the beverage and to have the user bring enough testing material to do so. Testing and re-testing the beverage is not only a hassle, but remembering to do so may become more difficult as time progresses (e.g., due to increased alcohol consumption). Additionally, as more alcohol is consumed, a user may be less able to distinguish between the normal effect of an alcoholic beverage and the effect of a contaminated alcoholic beverage. Accordingly, there remains a need for a more convenient, effortless, and continuous system to detect if and when a beverage has been contaminated.